When we arrive here, we would like to consider the heads of the damage claimed by the plaintiffs.
In the amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs claimed a number of main damages: one, the restitution of the amount they paid for the plots of land, minus the sums they received back from the Administration. Second, the profit they would have been able to derive had the lease contracts in relation to the land parcels not included clause 15, or even reliance damages that include loss of profits derived from the missed of an alternative contractual engagement (paragraphs 71-72 of the amended statement of claim).
Demand for Cancellation and Restitution
At the outset, it should be said that the plaintiffs claimed, as aforesaid, for the cancellation of the contracts, whether because of defects in their conclusion (mistake, deception or oppression) or because they were illegal. The cancellation of the contract imposes an obligation on each party to return to the other what it received under the contract, and at the very least, if restitution in kind is not possible, to pay the value of what it received. The rationale is clear: since the roots of the duty of restitution are rooted in the laws of enrichment and not in the law, in any case, upon the cancellation of the contract, neither party to the contract is entitled to hold what it received from the other party, even if the other is at fault (section 21 of the Contracts Law; Civil Appeal 214/23 Prosperiti Sal Real Estate Investment Consulting and Property Marketing in a Tax Appeal vs. The Building at 21 Jaffa St., Jerusalem in a Tax Appeal (July 21, 2024) (hereinafter: the "Prosperity Case"). In our case, the plaintiffs admit that restitution is "not so practical in this case" (paragraph 71 of the lawsuit; See ibid., section 75), since the land was taken back by the administrator and they are unable to return it to defendant 4 in exchange for receiving the monies they paid. In this sense, the plaintiffs' demand to return the money they paid is inconsistent with their obligation to return the land they received, and the rule is that "whoever paid money will receive back at its real value. Anyone who gave an asset in kind will receive it back according to its value on the date of restitution" (Civil Appeal 5393/03 Avraham Faraj v. Yael Meital (January 18, 2005) hereinafter: "The Avraham Faraj Case").